Rjack <u...@example.net> writes: >The CAFC's copyright decisions are utterly irrelevant to U.S. >copyright law. The fact that "the CAFC ignored it's own precedent" >simply demonstrates your confused mind since the CAFC has no >copyright law precedent.
Rjack is assuming that stare decisi applies only to binding precedents. But actually, stare decisis refers to a much broader principle that essentially says that the law ought to be stable and predictable. In this broaer sense, stare decisis will make the CAFC's ruling persuasive to and, as a practical matter, essentially binding upon, every other court in the US. Courts will rule differently from the CAFC only if they see the CAFC's ruling as somehow grossly erroneous. -- Rahul http://rahul.rahul.net/ _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss